Psych Gripes 1: Two Biggies

Let the kvetching commence!

But before that happens, here’s the introductory post to this series, explaining why I’m bothering. My understanding of the history etc. addressed may be misguided and/or lacking; substantive comments are welcome.

Gripe 1: Insufficient Differentiation

Psychology as a distinct academic field sprang from two parents: philosophy and biology. Very broadly, philosophy asked many questions and made many assumptions that focused on human functioning or the lack thereof in some way. Biology furnished it with scientific methods, which also included some assumptions that don’t apply so well to the social sciences. Once it was deemed safe¹ to explore psychological questions scientifically, it began in a typically ad hoc way. That’s typical of the human quest of discovery and development, so it probably isn’t helping my position to decry it straight off, but I think it’s particularly important for psychology.

Psychophysics highlights my gripe quite well. In trying to identify and quantify minimum amounts of physical stimulation required to yield a perceptual experience or a change in one, empirical methods ran in to problems: it was very difficult to control and quantify relevant variables sufficiently; and the subjects themselves introduced variability. Turns out that psychophysical limits are very sensitive to environmental and individual differences. Alas, that didn’t appreciably change enough in psychophysics to move the new discipline to more solid footing.

Humans aren’t nearly as similar and predictable as, say, carbon atoms or maple leaves placed in a specific set of conditions. This fundamental truth is not presented nor discussed nearly enough in textbooks and classrooms.

Gripe 2: Two Dangerous –isms

In the way the history of psychology was taught to me², philosophical assumptions were presented as explicitly that: placeholder theories until better thinking or empirical evidence came along that required changes. Philosophers probably varied substantially in their embrace of that position, however; people believe what they believe for what they think are sound reasons, and it can take a lot to persuade a person to change their mind. It’s possible that differences in this aspect of personality may have led to differences in people’s willingness to question or reject these assumptions, but we can’t know today how much of an influence it was on the philosophers or their adherents. The best we can do is point to our current understanding of social psychology³ and acknowledge the possible influences of conformity and the desire to be part of an in-group.

Early psychological work was influenced a lot by 17^th-century philosophy; perhaps no one was more influential than René Descartes. The two –isms that are always atop my list of gripes trace directly to him.

The first is rationalism. It’s generally defined as the belief that reasoning is the best and/or most important way of acquiring knowledge, in contrast to other means such as tradition, direct experience, or faith. Those who understand the origins of Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual theory of personality development at least a little should easily see the problem with rationalism. It shouldn’t take too much thinking to generalize from Freudian theory to other, more cherished theories.

The second objectionable –ism is dualism. Descartes’ belief that the mind and the body are separate entities with separate functions has been the source of a raft of enduring, serious problems, many of which will be detailed in future psych gripes. It’s the source of the biggest problems in cognitive psychology today, and I’m close to despairing that it will never be rejected.

Conclusion

My understanding of the development of the physical sciences is that as methodologies developed that allowed it, each moved out of the realm of philosophy and into their own discipline. So perhaps it’s unreasonable of me to object to psychology following the same course. It’s partly because of the findings in early psychophysics research and the unwillingness to reject rationalism and/or dualism in pursuit of a different way of conceptualizing and understanding them that I’m unwilling to be more malleable on the point.

Psychology’s first steps set it on a problematic path. As a whole, it hasn’t corrected that, largely because of the persistence of rationalism and dualism. Flaws in my arguments and/or evidence that provides reason to think that I’m wrong are welcome, when presented respectfully.

1: primarily by the dominant christian factions of the day (back to the paragraph)

2: almost all in graduate school courses; I don’t know how much of an influence that has on my thinking (back to the paragraph)

3: although doing so is itself a gripe that I’ll get to at some point (back to the paragraph)